Does shabda make pratyaksha invalid? Part 1 The Monk’s Podcast 206 with Radhika Raman Prabhu

Podcast:

Video:

Hare Krishna, Adhikaran Prabhu. Welcome back to the Monks Podcast.

Great to see you again. Thank you, Chaitanya Charan Prabhu. It's always a pleasure being here with you.

And our conversations are always very inspiring for me. Yes, Prabhu. It's been illuminating for me as well as for my readers.

And I thought we would continue a thread of thought that we had developed in our previous session. So, I'll be making notes, but I'm keeping the notes small over here. And when required, I'll zoom them out.

So, the topic I was thinking of was the scope of Shabda. The last time, one of the points which you made very important was that Pratyakshanuman and Shabda, every method of acquiring knowledge has its limitations. And one of them is that Shabda itself, the difficulty is to determine what exactly is Shabda.

So, is every single word of scripture Shabda? Or is it every simple word of the Acharya is a Shabda? So, that is itself a challenge. But if we consider, today what I want to say, if this is to say, everything that is knowable. Bhagavata uses the word Gyaana, Gyaana, Gyaana and Gyaana Gamya.

So, Gyaana is that which is knowable. So, is it that everything that is knowable is known solely through Shabda? Is that Shabda is something like this? All knowledge that is there to be known can be known through Shabda? Or is it something like a part of reality is known through Shabda? And another part of reality is known through other ways? Or is it like, say, we could have various scenarios, Pratyaksha and Anuman. Or is it that all of these are to be used for everything? So, is it like we have Gyaana.

And then, is it that there are overlapping areas where you say something is known through Pratyaksha, Pratyaksha, large part is known through Shabda, and something is known through Anuman. So, it's just a rough illustration of the question. And this question especially comes up, I would say, specifically with respect to science and scientific findings.

Especially when scientific findings seem, or even normal observations seem to be different from, seem to tell us something different from what scripture is telling us. It could be with respect to cosmology, it could be with respect to chronology, it could be with respect to geography. So, now we don't want to go into the specifics because that is a different subject in itself.

But what we want to discuss is that, to what extent is Shabda valid? And where does the domain of Shabda end? Or does it end anywhere? So, you can decide how you'd like to go ahead with this. Yeah. So, if I can just add a little bit of a nuance or explanation to your earlier statement that you quoted from our last podcast, which is that it's not so much, maybe I didn't express it properly in the last one, it's not so much that each Pramana has a limitation, but our capacity to access that Pramana is limited in some way.

Each of the Pramanas, you can say, in their ideal form, are actually perfect. They're wonderful. So, just like, for example, Jiva Goswami speaks of the perfection of Pratyaksha, which is empirical perception, is Vaidusha Pratyaksha, the Pratyaksha, the perception of those who are wise, who can see the truth, right? So, in that sense, Pratyaksha is also perfect.

But our capacity to access Pratyaksha accurately, even our capacity to access Shabda is limited. And so, therefore, one of the problems with Pratyaksha is that our senses are imperfect. So, our perception becomes imperfect.

One of the problems with Shabda is that we get fooled into thinking something is Shabda when it's not. Just like when some guru claims to be more than what he actually is and tries to mislead us and claims much greater authority than he has, then many people follow him. So, considering him to be Shabda, he's offering Shabda Pramana.

Or someone claims to be an avatar and speaks, then they think, oh, this is coming from the Lord. Therefore, it is revelation. Therefore, it's Shabda.

So, in that way, our ability to access Shabda is imperfect. We might not gain it properly. Okay.

Yeah. So, I think that's an important nuance to make. So, we could say that Shabda is, in one sense, being the revelation from the divine.

It's perfect. But how its perfection can be accessed by us or to what extent it can be accessed by us? So, in the 10th canto, I think Parikshit Maharaj asked this question to Shukdev Goswami that given that our senses are imperfect, how can we understand the ultimate reality? How can we understand the perfect absolute truth through our senses? And then ultimately, I think the answer is a little complicated overall. But essentially, it seems that he says that it boils down to mercy, that we do use our intelligence.

It's not that God has given us senses and intelligence just so that we reject them. It's also not that just because we are trying to know God, that means suddenly those senses and intelligence are going to be perfect. That it's by his grace.

Am I paraphrasing appropriately? I mean, it's a big subject. Yes. Yes.

So, this is exactly what I want to discuss, Puru. So, just for the sake of getting the ground laid out, before we dive into your original question, let's just say that there are many ways of knowing something. And the Vedanta Acharyas give different numbers.

But they boil them down into three main types. Shabda, Pratyaksha and Anuman. Or we can say Pratyaksha, Anuman and Shabda.

Yeah. Pratyaksha being empirical sense perception. Anumana being inference or reasoning, logic.

And Shabda being, broadly speaking, verbal testimony. So, when we get some knowledge from a reliable source, that's broadly speaking Shabda. And Prabhupada gives the example that, how do you know who your father is? Well, the reliable source is your mother.

So, on a broad level, Shabda is just knowledge from a reliable source. But in a narrow level, Shabda specifically refers to the revelation of the Vedas. The highest form of Shabda, you can say, is Vedic knowledge.

That is, knowledge that is Apo Rushaya. It's revealed, not by a human being, but by the Lord himself. So, first of all, It's interesting, we could say that when you generalise it like this, this is the way we get to know everything.

Yes. It's a, is there a pandemic? You know, we can see people who are sick. We can infer that, oh, there are so many people sick.

Probably, this is there all over the world. And then we hear from some reliable sources. Exactly.

Of course, there can always be a question of how reliable the sources are. But in principle, so this applies, this three, even the idea of Shabda, the principle of Shabda can apply to our day-to-day operation also. Definitely, not only, it must apply.

And this is the point. These are different ways of accessing truth, right? Accessing knowledge. And in an ideal world, they should give us exactly the same results.

If we think of them, if we think of it from the mind of God, right? If we think of it from Krishna's perspective, Krishna's Pratyaksha and Krishna's Anuman and Krishna's Shabda have no difference from each other. They give exactly the same knowledge because reality is the same, right? It's Sat. Upanishads say Sadeva.

There's only Sat. So reality is one. Therefore, all three should be ideally saying exactly the same thing or revealing the same truth, maybe from different perspectives.

But it's still approaching the same thing. So what I depicted is something what you're trying to say here? Yes, exactly. The same direction.

Yeah. Okay. But the problem is because of our limited capacity that we mentioned earlier, then what happens is that they end up pointing in different directions, right? So Shabda points one way, Pratyaksha points another way.

And then we get all kinds of problems like what if science conflicts Shastra? What if my own logic, if Shastra doesn't seem logical to me? What if my senses give something and logic gives something else, right? So all three of them can conflict with each other primarily because we have no because our access to them is limited. So now generally the way the discourse I grew up with is that Pratyaksha and Anumara are unreliable. That is why we need Shabda.

Then we talk about the four defects. And Jiyugoswami also talks about that in the Tathosandar verse, in the initial part. Now he doesn't elaborate about the four defects.

He just mentions them and it's assumed that the audience accepts it. Now we may go into much more about four defects and try to establish them. But I find that approach.

So what you are saying is that's one approach, but that's not the only approach. It's not because Pratyaksha and Anumara are defective that we need Shabda. It's that just as our limitations can lead us to be misled through Pratyaksha and Anumara, our limitations can also lead us to be misled about what Shabda is and what Shabda is teaching.

Yes, Prabhu. And I think that's also Jiyugoswami's understanding of the situation. We naturally emphasise the authority of Shabda.

And the reason for that is because at least an intelligent person doesn't need to be convinced about the authority of Anumara and Pratyaksha. We get it in school. We see it with our own eyes.

Children, even a child, when they see it, then they believe it. And you have to remind them, oh, don't believe it just because you see it. Something else may be deceiving you.

Just like when they've done studies that when children see something on TV, they tend to accept it as truth. When we know that so much on TV is not truth or it's the partial truth. So they have to be taught that.

So because we tend to trust our senses naturally, and as we grow older, we tend to trust our brains, our minds, our logical capacities. Therefore, the scriptures, the Acharyas emphasise the importance of Shabda. And that's one reason.

Another reason is because Shabda gives us access to information that is beyond Pratyaksha and Anumara. That Pratyaksha and Anumara don't have access to. And so for that reason, they emphasise.

And because the goal of spiritual life, the goal of the Acharyas is to help us understand and experience that which is transcendental. Therefore, naturally, they're going to have to rely on Shabda more than Pratyaksha and Anumara. So this is why Shabda is emphasised.

It's highly emphasised. But I think it's a mistake on our part if we take that emphasis and use it to destroy or devalue completely the others. So Shabda is important because it gives us knowledge about that which we cannot perceive, about the transcendental.

And that's why it's emphasised. It's also something that we don't accept automatically. We have to learn how to accept authority, to decide who is a reliable authority.

It has to be taught. Whereas the senses, everyone accepts. No one needs to be taught that.

No, it's interesting. The way Shraddha, and this one is like a different subject, but quickly. Shraddha is often translated as faith.

But Prabhupada at several places translates Shraddha almost like inquisitiveness. Nata Shraddha Dhaana Munayo Gyaana Vairagya Yuktaya The second chapter Prabhupada translates it as like the seriously inquisitive sage. And even in the nine stages of Bhakti where Shraddha comes in, it's like positive curiosity.

And later Nishtha is like deep conviction or something like that. Nice point. So this is also in one sense that we need convincing some person that there is at least something beyond this world to enquire about.

And there is some way to know about it. So in that sense, it's that which we naturally accept. We don't have to reject it, but we have to recognise that it's limited and there's something more.

And that we have to train ourselves to accept. Yes. So we could say almost it's like a pendulum effect.

Our natural tendency is to accept Pratyaksha and Anuman. But sometimes as a reaction, we might go and we might accept here it's only Pratyaksha and we could go to only Shraddha. So we might go from here to here initially.

But overall, it's in one sense, we could say all three are involved. Yes. And I'll give you one example, Prabhu, of this.

I was reading recently chapter 11 of Gita. And Arjuna asks Krishna, I accept what you've told me, but I want to see it now with my own eyes. Chapter 10, Krishna tells, gives Arjuna Vibhuti Yoga, how he can be seen in all of creation and all of creation can be seen in him.

And Arjuna says, now I want to see it with my own eyes. And Prabhupada writes in the purport, he says, Arjuna already had strong faith in Krishna. But Arjuna understands that the readers may want to see some evidence of this.

They might want to see it, see this proof that Krishna, is Krishna actually who he claims to be? And this attitude from the reader, Prabhupada is not against it. In fact, he writes in one purport in chapter 11. He says, early on, he says, there are so many so-called avatars and gurus who claim to be God.

When they claim to be God, we should immediately ask them, then please show me your universal form, your Vishwaroopa. Right. So what is happening here? There is ostensibly a potential source of Shabda.

Someone comes before us and says, I am Krishna or I am an avatar or I am Krishna's representative. And I'm God, not representative. I'm God.

I'm the avatar. And so therefore, immediately, if God is saying something, if avatar is saying something, then it has to be Shabda, right? That's the standard. What Krishna says, that is Shabda.

Now, but the problem is that often that claim is is is suspect or not correct. And so Prabhupada is saying, how do we verify it? We ask them to show us the universal form. That's basically is asking us to utilise Pratyaksha and Anuman, our own intelligence.

But combined with our perception to demonstrate the validity of supposed Shabda. And even that applies to Krishna himself, because Prabhupada says, even for Krishna, why should we accept on faith? Arjuna says, no, no, no, you have to show me. And Prabhupada doesn't reject that as being demoniac in nature.

He says, this is OK. Arjuna already knows who Krishna is. He spent so much time with him, but others may not.

So therefore he shows. But the average claim to Shabda is incorrect because most people cannot show this Vishwaroopa. So we see how Pratyaksha can directly help us corroborate Shabda and why we cannot give up Pratyaksha at the.

We cannot accept Shabda at the expense of Pratyaksha or Anuman, because if we get rid of Pratyaksha and Anuman, then we will end up in a situation of being extremely gullible. It's beautifully put. Now that you're mentioning this, the Acharyas explain that in the ninth chapter, Krishna has used the word Pashyami Yogam Aishwaram.

And Arjuna, actually the eleventh chapter, he says, show me your Roopa Aishwaram. And so that your connection with the world, the opulent way. So here yoga is used, not in the sense of the connection with the Lord.

It's more of the Lord connecting with the world and manifesting in the world. So please show it to me. So Yoga Aishwarya is more like a claim of Shabda that Krishna has made in the ninth chapter.

Arjuna is saying Roopa is associated with protection. It's exactly what you're saying. Yes.

And if we go through it, every Pramana without the others ends up becoming a potential danger, a potential trap for us. So if you accept Shabda and turn off your Pratyaksha and Anuman skills, then you're going to end up being fooled by any so-called claim to revelation. If you take Pratyaksha and you turn off Anumana and Shabda, then your senses will mislead you.

And Jiva Goswami gives many examples, Prabhupada gives many examples of this, how your senses can easily deceive you. There's so many optical illusions and Prabhupada's classic example of this is the sun. You look at the sun in the sky, it's the size of one inch, maybe like this.

But by Anuman, you can understand that it's actually much, much bigger. It's bigger than all of the planets. So Pratyaksha without Anuman or without Shabda is very limited.

So the example of China, I know that China exists, but if I use only Pratyaksha as the basis, then there's no veracity for it. Without Shabda, I've never been to China myself. I cannot accept it, that it exists.

In fact, we see the dangers of Pratyaksha alone in the work of the British empiricist philosophers, particularly David Hume, who was a sceptic. And he came to the conclusion that he could not even accept the reality of cause and effect in this world. He did not know whether anything was predictable, whether any cause leads to an effect or not.

Because Pratyaksha cannot get you there. You have to use Anuman for that purpose. So he was an extreme sceptic.

In fact, David Hume famously said that although the sun has risen for a million years before this, exactly on schedule, and although it rose yesterday also, there is no guarantee that it will rise tomorrow. Just because it's happened a million times doesn't mean that million plus one, n plus one is going to be the same thing. The only way you can conclude that n plus one is going to follow the same pattern is by Anuman, right? And by Shabda, by putting these two things together.

And because he refused to accept that, he only relied on Pratyaksha. He turned into an extreme sceptic, which is paralysing, essentially, to live in this world. Right.

So what I mean to say is you can turn it both directions. You take Shabda and you remove Pratyaksha and you become a blind fool. You have blind faith and you take Pratyaksha and you remove Shabda and you become a sceptic, which is paralysed, essentially, as a sceptic.

So I read about David Hume, but the way you put it in this context is amazing. So what he says is you can see a cause and you can see an effect. But all that you are saying is event A followed by event B. There's no way for you to know that event A caused event B. Exactly.

And we could say, no, this is what we observed in the past. But you say, OK, but there's no guarantee that means it has to happen in the future. I think that uses the inductive method or induction.

So the inductive method in science is basically like Anuman, it's inference, it's reasoning. So now going back to Shabda alone, I was thinking that the point of verifying Shabda. Vishal Prabhupada often would quote this phalaena parichayate, that we know who is a great devotee by seeing what results they have produced.

So this is also how do you know the phala? It is at one level Pratyaksha. And Prabhupada would say that I am carrying forward my special master's mission. And I have the potency because so many books have been distributed, so many temples have been built, so many people have been attracted.

Now, of course, that is not the sole thing. Because there will be so many people who like Prabhupada said they might be given somebody selling an imitation diamond. They will get far more customers than somebody who is selling a real diamond.

So here we see that there is both. This phalaena, it's accepted. And it's also in one sense, not rejected, but qualified or limited.

So we could almost say that Shabda informs us about, it's like Shabda guides our Pratyaksha. Okay, what phala to look for? What fruit to look for? And then phala also, when we see that fruit, then it increases our conviction in Pratyaksha. Isn't it? So in that sense, the two can go synergistically.

Now, if you see practically, when new people come to, when new people start practising bhakti, if they go for a pilgrimage, they go to Vrindavan, they go to Mayapur or here in America, they go to Sadhu Sangha and they see hundreds of people practising from various backgrounds. That Pratyaksha at one level increases their faith. Hey, so many people are practising it.

There's so much substance to this. There's so much, if they go to ancient holy places in India, there's so much antiquity behind it, history behind it. So this is also an example of Pratyaksha, isn't it? Yes.

And very much so, Prabhu. And Jiva Goswami provides in his Sarva Sambhadini, his commentary on the Shastras and Darbhas, he provides several instances where Pratyaksha has a significant role to play in our understanding of Shabda. And he illuminates the relationship between Pratyaksha and Shabda in very nuanced and very wonderful ways.

It's not simplistic, his approach. He recognises what we're discussing, what we're describing. I've identified several areas in which these two, the scope of Shabda is very much intertwined with the scope of Pratyaksha.

They can't be considered entirely separate. And Shabda cannot be considered to be, it doesn't suffocate Pratyaksha and Anuman. That's the key point.

That Shabda never suffocates the other two, never kills them, never destroys them, never puts them into a corner. The other two remain very important for their respective areas and their respective strengths. They're crucial for that purpose.

I read some Christian theologians, they sometimes say that there are different schools of theology in Christianity also. I wonder whether there's something similar in our tradition also. There are some thinkers who say that there is the light of scripture and there's a light of nature at both points towards God.

That's one school of thought. But another is that they say that nature is receptive. And if nature could tell us what scripture is telling, then there would be no need for scripture and there would be no need for faith.

This, of course, specifically they use it with respect to the problem of evil. But they say that sometimes we have to discount the evidence. Faith means basically discounting the evidence of our senses.

Because if the senses could tell us, if the senses could give us evidence of God's love, God's grace, then there would be no need for faith. So in that sense, is there some kind of dialectic similar or what would you say about the dialectic from our tradition? That's not Jeeva Goswami's perspective on the matter for sure. So that faith means discounting the senses.

That's a very, very limited notion of faith. Extremely limited. For us, perfection is tattva-darshi.

That we should be able to see the truth through shabda, through pratyaksha, through anuman. All of these, this is what tattva-darshi means. Darshana is the word for philosophy.

It's also the word for vision, for sight, for seeing. It's the same word used for both anuman and for pratyaksha. And the tattva-darshi is the source of shabda also.

Sorry, which is the same word used for pratyaksha and anuman? Darshan. Like darshan shastra. Darshan means philosophy in Sanskrit.

Like imamsa darshan, vedanta darshan, right? So philosophy means anuman. So darshan refers, it points to anuman because that's what darshan is. It's a philosophy.

Philosophy is founded on anuman. But darshan literally means seeing something. That's the heart of pratyaksha.

And the one who has darshan, tattva-darshi, that person is a source of pratyaksha. Jiva Goswami describes this. The vision of those who are vaidusha or wise, those who are self-realised, that he says is the source of shabda.

Both in the sense that they convey shabda to us from the Lord and also in the sense that their vision is as good as revelation from the Lord. Both. So for us, it's much more, for Jiva Goswami, this is much more, these three come together.

It's not, to say that faith is the realm of one against the other is a very limited notion of what faith means for Gaudiya Vaishnav. So we could say that in one sense, you could say that anuman, let's focus on pratyaksha right now. So pratyaksha and shabda point in the same direction, but shabda takes us further.

But it's not necessary that we have to reject pratyaksha. We have to go beyond pratyaksha, not in the sense of rejecting it, but in the sense of recognising that there is more to reality than what pratyaksha can show. But it is not that what pratyaksha shows is wrong.

So this is, now we've come to the point, which is to the heart of the question. What is the relative scope of shabda and pratyaksha? So let's look at that. How far can pratyaksha take you and in what direction? And how far can shabda take you and in what direction? By direction, I mean on what subject or what topic? So to start that, let me first read you a quotation from Jiva Goswami, which on first read is extremely overwhelming.

It looks like there's no scope for pratyaksha and anuman at all. It's only shabda. So here's the quotation.

So Jiva Goswami says, this one means of knowledge, namely shabda, consists of statements that are free from the four defects. This is one reason he says shabda is superior. It's free from the four defects.

Other reasons for its superiority of shabda is that it does not depend on any of the others, pratyaksha and anuman. And although the others may assist shabda as far as they are able, this one independent means of knowing, shabda, in performance of its function is seen to even overrule the others. So the others can assist it, but it has the ability to overrule pratyaksha and anuman.

And also he says that what is once established by shabda, the fact established by shabda is irreversible by the others. And finally, shabda is most effective in proving facts that the powers of the others, pratyaksha and anuman, cannot even touch. Therefore, he says, the two other principal means of knowing, so pratyaksha and anuman, are reduced to shadow-like subordinates of shabda.

They are shadow-like subordinates of shabda. In other words, it seems, this is the purvapaksha, right? It seems that just from reading this out of context, that shabda has the power to correct and to overrule pratyaksha and anuman, it has the power to give you knowledge that the others cannot give, and pratyaksha and anuman have no ability to correct or to add anything to shabda. So therefore, the other two are shadows.

What use is there of the others, right? So if we stopped here, then there's no scope for anything. For science, there's no scope. There's no scope for logic, philosophy, argument.

But of course, Jeeva Goswami doesn't stop here. He, in fact, describes a very rich and nuanced relationship between shabda and the others that is much, much better than just this. In other words, he presents initially to establish the supremacy of shabda, and we should begin there by recognising what are the characteristics, why it's supreme, and you've listed them nicely on the board.

It can overrule the other pramanas. It cannot be corrected by the pramanas. It's the sole source of transcendental knowledge, and it is free from the four defects, you may want to add.

That one also. So these are the reasons why Jeeva Goswami says shabda is supreme. But he doesn't stop here, and that's the key point.

Yeah, it's so important to read a text in full, because this would seem to rule out any role for section 101 at all. But it's also nice to begin at this point, because I think as Gaudiya Vaishnavas, as Vedantists, we have to begin by acknowledging the supremacy of shabda, right? As in, even in this podcast, as we're trying to explore the relationships between the three as dialogical in nature, I think we have to begin by stating clearly that shabda gives us something that the others cannot. It gives us access to that which is transcendental, that which is beyond the scope of both reason and the senses.

And this is why all the Vedant Acharyas regard shabda as the best pramana for their subject matter, which is knowledge of Brahman, knowledge of the absolute truth. So it's a good place to begin, but it's not the place to stop. And I think that's the point that we want to convey here, is this is not where we want to end, because Jiva Goswami does not end there.

Our Acharyas don't end there. Prabhupada doesn't end there. This is like your earlier point that, because we naturally trust Pratyeksha, and we learn to trust Hanuman, so this is more like establishing the need and the authority of shabda.

But then it's like you have to bring the pendulum back to the balance point. Yes. So the first question that we want to raise here is to now nuance the relationship.

First question is, what counts as shabda? What constitutes shabda, that category? And on one level, the answer is easy. Jiva Goswami says the Vedas. The Vedas constitute shabda.

And indeed, they are in a category that is so powerful, it's called apaurasheya, that which is not composed by any human hand. It's composed by the Lord himself. It can be revealed through human beings, but the origination is in the Lord.

But he doesn't… I'll raise a question, and you can decide whether we have the time to go into this, because you earlier mentioned also Vaidusha-Prakteksha. So what is the understanding in our tradition of… We understand that there is the scriptures, the Vedas have come from a divine source, but the scriptures are also associated with particular sages. Each Veda is associated with a particular sage, and then the Bhagavatam is, of course, associated with Vyasadeva.

But then, is it that we consider the message itself, every single word is dictated by the Lord, and that's why they're simply becoming like a transcriber? I know there is a difference between, with respect to Shruti and Smriti also, but when we say that they have a divine source, the tradition also acknowledges that there is a human… We don't only use the word source, but we use the word human channel. So how exactly… What is it? Do you want to go into this right now, or should we talk about it separately? I can say something briefly about it, which is that the Acharyas and the Vedic tradition is very aware of the fact that divine revelation has human conveyance, that the way we get it is through parampara, and that means that human beings convey, and over time, yoga nashta parantapa. If the human conveyors are not reliable, they're not apta, they're not trustworthy, then that knowledge can be lost.

And in terms of these conveyors, there's two types that you can discern in Sarva Sambhadini. One is those rishis who are simply conveying Vedic mantras with very little agency themselves. They're not adding their realisations, they're not giving it based on their own understanding.

They're simply conveying, and Jiva Goswami says, in every kalpa, rishis of the same name appear to convey the same mantras. It may not be the same Jivas, but they have the same names, so that the Vedic mantras can always be by the same rishis in exactly the same words. By Vedic, I mean the Vedic Samhitas, Rig, Yajur, Samad, Atharva.

That tradition is very particular about the exact wording, and the rishis are merely, in a very limited sense, they're postmen. They're giving, but not digesting. It's just conveying exactly the way it is.

The other type of conveyor… Is it only the category of Shruti? That's a little bit iffy, and I'll explain why in a moment. It's a little blurry, I need to say. But the other type of conveyor you find of Shabda is those rishis or devotees who are conveying that same truth, but with their realisation and application.

So here, for example, Bhagavatam, Shruti Goswami says, yatha dhitam yatha mati that I'm giving this as I have learned it, and as I have realised it, as I have understood it. And here, with the Puranas and so on, the acharyas are very clear that there are variant readings sometimes. They'll put in Yadva, for example, or Athava, or Pathantarena, they say.

There's another patha that they explain also. So they recognise that the shloka might be slightly different in a different manuscript. But it's okay, by explaining it, they're showing that the intended message is exactly the same.

The meaning is the same. You know, when I first read Chakravarti Path's commentaries, I was struck by, in one sense, his nonchalance toward these variant readings. Yes.

It's like, okay, it could be this, it could be this. It's almost like you have one target, and that target is to be hit, whether you are having this reading or that reading, it just comes to that same target. So the understanding is the same.

And so many times it says, right, that Shukhamukhadamritadravasamyutam that by being tasted by the mouth, or coming from the mouth of Shukadeva Goswami, from a fruit tasted by the parrot becomes sweeter, means this is not a conveyance in the very restricted sense, that first sense. This is conveyance in a much richer sense. The conveyor has something to offer.

It's the same siddhanta, but it has become sweetened, it has become applied by the conveyor. So in this context, then the exact wording is less important. Okay.

So here also, and it would mean that, so while our acharyas do analyse the specific words of the Bhagavatam, and they go deep into how particular words convey particular things. And so it's not that the specific words are unimportant, but it's just that they are not the all-important thing. Okay, then I think it's a different subject, but this could also apply to, say, Prabhupada's works, because Prabhupada uses certain words, and words have particular meanings at particular times.

So we have to look at the spirit or the intent behind those, what is the actual message? And then we may have to use the words which may be more understandable or less of triggering words in today's context. Exactly. So the Vedas, the four Vedic Samhitas, are fundamentally untranslatable.

Means you can translate them to understand their meaning, if you like, but you cannot use that translation to perform Vedic yajnas. You have to recite it in exactly the same words and tone, the same pitch, as it has always been recited. But for the Bhagavatam, for the Puranas, for the Vaishnava literature, as you're saying, the words are not unimportant, they're crucial.

The Acharyas love unpacking them and explaining them. At the same time, the power can be conveyed even in the English language or the Bengali. And therefore, Prabhupada said, anyone who reads one page of Krishna book can go back to God, it can become transformed, right? Why? It's not in Sanskrit, it's not the original words, it's new words.

For the first time in history, Prabhupada is writing those words, and yet they have the power. Why? Because they are coming from Vaidusha, the person who is actually a Tatvadarshi, the person who has the ability to convey Shabda, not in the minimalistic sense, not in the restrictive sense, but in a richer sense. So this is the difference between Vedic tradition and Vaishnava tradition in this regard.

Same you see with the Koran, for example. The Koran is untranslatable. For most Muslims, Koran is written on a tablet in heaven.

Every word of it, every letter of it is written. And you can translate it for your own edification, but you cannot recite the Koran in any other language. So it won't have the same power, the same effect.

But we regard that the power of Shastra is not diminished by change in language. Especially, I think among the various sacred books, the Ramayana has had the greatest impact on the Indian psyche. And it's quite often the vernacular Ramayanas that have had a huge impact, whether it's the Tulsi Ramayana or the Kamba Ramayana.

And people memorise so many verses from those and recite those and relish those also. If you look at from the Phalena Parichayate, there are people who have achieved a rich level of bhakti, even if they have never really read the Valmiki Ramayana. That's not their primary source of connection with Ram.

We could say, in one sense, bhakti, it is said, it's a pratyahata. So it cannot be limited even by language in that sense. Very nice.

I like that. Thank you. What you talked about the conveyors, there are two things.

One thing is from the divine source. It comes to the human level through a, there's a human, you used the word conveyor. I just want to differentiate between two categories over here.

There is the human, maybe you could use the word receiver, the first receiver. It came from God, the first receiver. And then we could say we have a chain of human transmitters or human conveyors, as you said.

Is there any, is there any difference in principle between the first receiver and the subsequent transmitters? What kind of difference do you mean? I mean, the point is, well, on one level, the answer is no, because this is the whole thing. That particular verse seems to be talking more about this. It is by the power of time.

Things are getting deteriorated. It means originally they were good. That means that is what it seems to convey.

There's no defect here, but defects can come subsequently. But it's not that at one level, even the original sages, except Vyasa Devi considered the literary avatar of the Lord. But apart from that, not every single sages is God himself descended to the world.

So, is there a possibility of the yogo nashtah happening at the original receiver also? Or we consider the original sages to be perfected beings? I mean to say, in principle, yes. Original, even the defect can happen at any stage. So Dhritarashtra also heard Bhagavad Gita, right? But it doesn't mean that he was the perfect receiver of Bhagavad Gita, at least at that stage.

So, what I mean to say is that defect can be there at any stage. But in reality, we understand that the rishis are perfect.